Jonathan Cohen

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

In plain English, can you explain how, when, and where Oswald developed his proficiency in the Russian language?
 

You guys sure like to start the same thread over and over again, don't ya? Here are plenty of perfectly logical, alternative explanations for how Oswald developed his Russian skills, in a thread Sandy created and in which you posted repeatedly, back in ... 2017.

Now then. In plain English, can you address how H&L adherents rationalize the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation?

34 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Jim Hargrove and I are presenting evidence.
 

Uh huh. So when challenged on the cornerstone of the entire H&L theory -- the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation -- Jim Hargrove instead rattles off a dozen-plus statements that have nothing to do with the specific question at hand? That is evidence of.. what exactly?

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Bojczuk nearly every day for years has used the mastoidectomy to declare his case closed.  To do so, of course, he must declare that only the mastoidectomy is relevant to the case of two Oswalds, that there are no other explanations for the mastoidectomy, and that all the other evidence is irrelevant, a “distraction.”  

Let’s consider just a handful of other examples of the evidence for two Oswalds.

No. Let's not. How about, for once, actually addressing the mountain of evidence Jeremy has posted in this thread which completely destroys the entire H&L theory, instead of posting the same list of totally irrelevant talking points OVER and OVER again? Even simply saying, "I am not sure how to reconcile the mastoidectomy evidence" would at least be intellectually honest and grist for actual debate and discussion.

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

   

Neither one of the dates may be true since this is a false photo that combines Lee and Harvey.  Why would the information be true if he photo is not?

A false photo that combines Lee and Harvey? Huh? Falsified by who? Why? And then forcibly included in Robert Oswald's 1967 book? Why is it that H&L believers fail to accept that human beings sometimes get dates and times wrong, years after the fact? Is it so impossible to believe that Robert was simply incorrect about the date he put in the caption?

On 8/1/2020 at 10:54 PM, John Butler said:

If one is looking for shooters in the Dal-Tex building one might go to Altgens 6 and look at this northern 3rd floor window.

   

So, according to you, the conspirators massively altered Altgens 6 during the precious few minutes before it went out over the AP wire but managed to leave in evidence of a sniper in a window of the Dal-Tex building?

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Well of course Voebel knew he had befriended two different people. Because they WERE two different people. The first one went by the name Harvey Oswald and the second by the name Lee Oswald.

 

That's what YOU say. That isn't what Voebel says. Please show me specific evidence from Voebel's testimony where he clearly articulates that he was friends with TWO different and distinct boys both with the last name of Oswald during this time period.

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

However, if we compare the natures of the two friendships (Ed/Harvey and Ed/Lee) we see that they were completely different. Which again points to two Oswalds.

 

So are you telling us that Ed Voebel had no idea he had befriended two different people?

29 minutes ago, John Butler said:

IMO, that's not quite true.  It was sent in an hour to the AP, but not to newspapers all over the world.  It's first showing was with Walter Cronkite.  They had several hours afterwards to realize there were problems and remake the photo.  It didn't go on the air until about 5:35 CST with Uncle Walter.  That's time to make a fraud and re-wire it to the AP or whoever several times over.

This is what I recall.  My memory is not as good as once past.  If I am wrong on this, please correct.

This would mean that between 12:30 and 5:35, of course the plotters also altered other films and photographs of the TSBD doorway -- which they didn't even yet have in their possession or know existed -- so that they could bring them into alignment with the newly faked Altgens 6. You've got to be kidding, right?

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Since you are so well versed in the evidence you MUST know about all the conflicts created by the "fake" Marge's WC testimony...  or better yet, you can explain how the "real" Marge would not know so much about herself, her children, her marriages, or her residences....

Yes, I can offer a simple explanation that does not require her to be an impostor and/or part of some doppelganger plot. She had a poor memory, made honest/simple mistakes, was nervous and under stress, some of her responses were recorded incorrectly, etc. etc. Haven't you ever made a mistake when recalling details about your own life? Can you remember the exact address of every place you've ever lived? As with every single piece of evidence that you claim supports the doppelganger theory, there are perfectly logical alternatives to the contrary.

9 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As several people have pointed out, here and elsewhere, how come the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme let Robert Oswald give away the plot not once but twice? He let the doppelganger cat out of the Stripling bag to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and then again several years later in front of the Warren Commission, no less! What sort of clown-car top-secret doppelganger scheme was this?

Jeremy, don't forget that the overseers of the top-secret long-term doppelganger scheme also allowed the "fake" Marguerite Oswald to give an interview to a local journalist! 

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

James,

Congratulations on this stunning find! 
 

There is nothing mysterious or conspiratorial about this document whatsoever. As usual, simple mistakes take on needly sinister meanings in the H&L world.

47 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The "Marguerite Oswald" impostor accurately described to reporter Les Strother in 1959 how Harvey Oswald quit and returned to school on 3 separate occasions. The most likely reason for Harvey's changing from one school to another was his inability to provide transcripts from the previous schools. We can now see that her innocent sounding, but very revealing statement, about Harvey was correct. 

Riiiiiight. The "Marguerite Oswald impostor" gives interviews to local journalists. Great thinking by the plotters, huh?

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

If the answers to either/both 1 or 2 are "yes, I do believe Oswald was being impersonated in 1960 and/or in 1963", then in my opinion that person should lay off calling the Harvey and Lee theory nonsense. You may not personally believe that Oswald had an exact double shadowing him since childhood, but clearly there was something suspicious going on regarding his identity that deserves closer examination.

And here, finally, is an important distinction. Was Oswald impersonated in some form at some point during his lifetime? There is credible evidence to suggest he was, although there is just as much credible evidence indicating some of these witnesses were mistaken. It is absolutely possible to believe Oswald was impersonated on a handful of occasions WITHOUT having to believe in the preposterous and nonsensical notion that there were TWO different versions of him (and TWO of his mothers, let's not forget..) galavanting around the world for a decade.

5 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

John Butler also writes:

All the films and photographs which show the railroad workers on the bridge are faked now, are they? How were the films and photographs faked? When did this happen? Why would anyone bother? How did the bad guys find the time to fake all of these films and photographs? Weren't they busy enough faking some obscure article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram? Perhaps Mr Butler would kindly fill us in on some of these important details.

This is another feature of 'Harvey and Lee' methodology: claim that documents are faked, but fail to give any reasons beyond "those bad guys faked that other thing, so they must have faked this thing too."

Not to derail this thread, but the above is one of John Butler's favorite talking points. I challenged him to explain how this evidence could have been faked in an earlier thread where he claimed Altgens 6 has been heavily altered, but neither he nor anyone else can do it. Why? Because the film and photo record in this case is self-authenticating.

2 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

There is a perfectly simple, albeit mundane, solution to the Kudlaty/Stripling controversy.  It will please no one.  But here goes.

Kudos to Robert. This is one of many perfectly logical ways to explain the Stripling confusion.

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John A. summarized what really happened:

The "Marguerite Oswald" imposter accurately described to reporter Les Strother in 1959
how Harvey Oswald quit and returned to school on 3 separate occasions. The most likely
reason for Harvey's changing from one school to another was his inability to provide
transcripts from the previous schools. We can now see that her innocent sounding, but very
revealing statement, about Harvey was correct.

 

Why on earth would whoever was running this imaginary double Oswald project allow the "Marguerite Oswald" imposter to give interviews to local journalists??

23 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

Equally fascinating to this frontal head shot evidence and observations is the total lack of anyone at Parkland describing anything close to the huge orange blob/flap shown in the extant Zapruder film.  So this is doubly convicting - JFK was shot twice from the front and the orange blob/flap was manufactured in the film.

False. None of the Parkland doctors determined the extent of this flap because Mrs. Kennedy had essentially pushed it back together while holding JFK's head during the ride to the hospital. Upon arrival at the ER, the doctors were completely focused on the wound in the back of the head but even then did not know its true shape and extent.

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've been sitting here trying to develop an analogy that would illustrate to the readers Jeremy's illogical line of reasoning...

 

You're kidding, right? Jeremy has absolutely destroyed the key point of this entire ridiculous theory. but HE is the one with an illogical line of reasoning? As always, if you need me, I'll be having cocktails with the "short, dumpy" Marguerite Oswald. Or, wait. Maybe it's the "tall, attractive, well-dressed" Marguerite. I'll let you know.

25 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Essentially what this post says is that the photo above, like many others, is a fraudulent representation of the events in Dealey Plaza. 

There is absolutely nothing fraudulent about that photo.

20 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Hit and run Jon?  Do all your opinions get this much supporting data...

Cheers Jon... to each their own.
 

No "supporting data" will ever satisfy H&L adherents that they're actually talking about the same person - not two distinct individuals who magically look exactly alike. All the supporting data anyone would ever need comes from the exhumation, which proves there was one and only one Lee Harvey Oswald. Was Oswald impersonated at various points throughout the assassination? I believe he was, in an attempt to strengthen the eventual case against him. But that certainly does not require subscribing to the preposterous and throughly debunked notion that he was part of a CIA doppelganger project.

4 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

I read Josiah Thompson's essay, this is his summation quote:

“The efforts of those who sought to show the Zapruder film was a fake have produced unanticipated results. The failure of their effort has disclosed a region of evidence in the case which is incontrovertibly genuine. This evidence, in turn, can be used to test the authenticity of other evidentiary elements. In the photographic record from Dealey Plaza, we have available to us a single fabric of self-authenticating evidence which can be used as bedrock for reconstructing the event.”

My response is:

“The downfall of this statement is/was the assumption that the Zapruder film is/was the self-authenticating “gold standard” for all reconstructions. An altered film falls far short of confirming other film authenticity when those same alterations were aptly applied. That “bedrock” status is about to change.”

 

Chris - are you suggesting that the "same" alterations made to the Zapruder film were made to every other motion picture taken in Dealey Plaza?

There is no "Harvey." Paperwork anomalies notwithstanding, every single photo being discussed here is of the same person - the one and only historical Lee Harvey Oswald.

9 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

For instance, why the insistence that the above document snippet refers to a failed prosthesis. Could it be just as likely the failed refers to the exam? Maybe he had cavities and did not pass a dental exam. Can you provide anything that definitively shows the failure refers to a prosthesis? 

Similarly, this all seems to hinge on Voebels statement that he "thinks" Oswald "might" have lost a tooth. That statement also means he thinks he might NOT have lost a tooth. Equal weight should be given to that... 

Hallelujah, Mark. H&L adherents seem incapable of giving equal weight to anything that might challenge their beliefs. As Ron Ecker points out in the next post, "FAILED" could mean any number of things OTHER THAN "failed prothesis," and as such certainly cannot be used to support the notion that the corpse is at odds with the extant dental records.

2 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

On a personal note, I found his stuff fascinating but unconvincing. It seemed pretty far-fetched, to be honest.

Precisely. I do not believe it is possible to do with the assassination images what Wilson claimed he could.

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

I wonder what group "Jonathan Cohen" is working for. He pops up

now regularly with his kneejerk pro-WC comments, as

David Von Pein used to do as the designated disruptor

of intelligence discourse on this site.

Joseph: I'm honored you think my postings rise to the level of paid disinformation specialist. Now I've really hit the big time! In reality, none of my comments here have EVER been pro-Warren Commission. I am as staunch a disbeliever in their findings and conclusions as you will find on this forum. Rather, my comments are in objection to JFK conspiracy theories that are at best implausible and unsupported by any hard evidence (ie, nearly every film and photo shot in Dealey Plaza was altered) and at worst simply preposterous (two distinct Lee Harvey Oswalds running around the United States independent of one another for a decade, "fake" Marguerite Oswalds, etc.). We all owe Tracy Parnell a debt of gratitude for his exhaustive debunking of the "Harvey and Lee" concept.